2. My blog detailing the effort of some bureaucrat at the Department of National Defence who tried to shut down the National Citizens Coalition "Support our Troops" campaign. Luckily it had a happy ending.

1. Of course, my number one blog has to be the one which broke the "Harper Eats Babies" story. This made news not only across Canada but in the United States as well. I was even interviewed by the New York Times.

J.K. Rowling has announced the title of the latest Harry Potter book; it's called Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. My first thought when I heard this was, "What's a hallow?" and my second thought was, what if Rowling wrote books on Canadian politics.

Here are some possible titles:

Stephen Harper and the Income Trust of Doom.Jack Layton and the Party of Irrelevance

Gilles Duceppe and the Separatist's MillstoneStephane Dion and the Prisoner of KyotoNot sure any of these would be bestsellers but I am sure they would all get government funding.

Thursday, December 21, 2006

But in this case, I will make an exception, since the National Post has made a letter I wrote to the paper "Letter of the Day".

It's essentially a re-working of a posting I wrote, yesterday, but since I can't think of anything else to post today, I will reprint it here:

Re: Dion Drafts Main Rivals for 'Dream Team,' Dec. 20.

Stephane Dion has supposedly put the federal Liberals on a pre-election footing with the formation of a "dream team." But what are the duties of each member? As far as I can figure, they are as follows:

Thanks to "anonymous" for giving me an idea for an op-ed I wrote which appears in today's Vancouver Sun.

A about two weeks ago, I posted on this blog about how I wishing for a Christmas miracle, in the form of cash, to help me pay some bills I was facing.

Anyway, good old anonymous piped in the comments section with this opinion:

"Hmm, does that mean you want a handout Me thinkest thou should practice what thou preaches. Funny about you conservative types, when its about you, you want freebies or handouts when its the rest of the world you want conservative policies."

This got me thinking about what would happen if Christmas miracles really were government handouts.

This led to the oped "The Ministry of Christmas Miracles" which you can read here.

Thanks again to anonymous and Merry Christmas to you.

Media Update: I will be discussing this topic Focus 980 on CFPL London at about 11:15 AM EST and on Newsline on CFAX Victoria at about noon EST.

Media Update 2

Will be talking about this on Adler Online on Wednesday at about 2:15 PM EST.

I have been getting some flack for dissing It's a Wonderful Life, so to prove I am no Christmas grinch and in the spirit of the season, here are what I consider to be(in no particular order) the top ten Christmas movies of all time.

Miracle on 34th St. (1947 version)-- My eyes always tear up when they find the cane in the house.

First off, it's way too hokey and sentimental. Second of all, I hate the way the lead character, George Bailey, is always sacrificing his interests, his dreams and his happiness for the sake of others. (It's no wonder he is completely miserable.) And finally, be honest, wouldn't you rather live in Pottersville?

The closest the bio comes to acknowledging the NCC is the part where it says: "Mr. Harper has spent his political career standing up and speaking out for Canadians who work hard, pay their taxes and play by the rules."

Oh well, at least his enemies on the left keep reminding Canadians he was our president.

Yesterday I noted the complexity of the "Single Transferable Vote" system the government wants to use to elect Senators.

So to better understand how this system works I asked the Prime Minister's Office to send me a backgrounder.

It didn't help.

Here's the explanation they sent me:

Under STV, voters will rank their preferred Senate nominees, beginning with their first preference (i.e. by marking the number “1” beside that nominee’s name) and then expressing consecutive preferences up to the number of “vacancies”* available (i.e. by marking the number “2” by their second choice, “3” by their third, and so on).Under the STV counting system, a Senate nominee must receive a number of votes equal to a pre-determined quota in order to be selected. This quota is determined by dividing the number of validly cast ballots in the province by the number of vacancies, plus one; one is added to the dividend; and the result is the quota. In other words, the quota is determined by the following formula:Valid Votes Cast------------------------------------- +1Number of Vacancies +1Therefore, for example, if there were five potential Senate appointments for a province, the quota for the province would be 1/6 of the total votes, plus 1.To determine who has met the quota, all first preferences on the ballots are counted. Any nominee receiving enough first preference votes on this count are selected. If a nominee receives more than the quota, then his or her “surplus votes” (that is, those in excess of the quota) are distributed to the second preferences indicated on those ballots. If on any count, no nominee reaches the quota, then the nominee with the fewest votes is eliminated and his or her votes are distributed to the continuing nominees. This process continues through subsequent preferences until the number of nominees equals the number of vacancies available.

Huh?

This is what happens when you let government bureaucrats come up with an idea. Anybody else would have said, here's how you vote for a Senator -- put an "X" next to the name of the guy you like.

But for bureaucrats that unnecessarily simple.

Whenever they come up with an idea it's usually determined by the following formula:

Number of needlessly stupid ideas------------------------------------- +1Number of bureaucrats +1

I see where Ontario's Integrity Commissioner says Ontario MPPs deserve a big raise.

Why do they deserve a pay raise?

Is it because they are doing more work? Is it because they have more responsiblity? Is it because they are doing such a great job?

Nope.

It's because Ontario MPs make more money than they do. Federal backbench MPs make about $147,000 a year, wheras provincial MPPs must make do with "only" $88,000.

And that's how political renumeration works. Your pay isn't decided on how well you do your job, it's based on how much money some other guy is getting.

MPs whined and cried that American Senators made more than they did, to justify giving themselves a pay raise. Then city councillors whined and cried that MPs made more than they did, to justify giving themselves pay raise and now MPPs are whining and crying that everybody gets more than they do, so they should have a raise.

Then, of course, American Senators will whine and cry that they should make more than Canadian MPs and so the vicious circle will continue.

What all these politicians forget is that they work for taxpayers. And since we are their bosses, maybe we should have a say in their pay.

Maybe we should hold a referendum everytime politicians want to give themselves a raise. Or another idea would be to allow politicians to give themselves a raise with the understanding that it will not take effect until after the next election.

That way at least taxpayers will have some say in the matter.

In the meantime, maybe our politicians should try and earn a pay raise.

I would like to interrupt all the political convention coverage to draw attention to an essay William Gairdner has written on the whole "nation" debate.

Gairdner, who was the former chairman of the National Citizens Coalition, examines the whole question of what federalism is supposed to mean.

He begins with an fascinating recounting of how Americans and Canadians tried to deal with the seeming paradoxical notion of "two sovereign authorities in the same state".

The Americans tried to check the power of the central government through a series of balances while Canadians opted to strictly outline the provincial powers in the BNA Act.

Neither approach worked.

As Gairdner writes: "the trend over time is always that the superior power will find ways, however devious, to slowly gobble up the subordinate ones."

And in both the U.S. and Canada the central power has, in fact, gobbled up the state/provincial powers.

Gairdner says this must change:

There must be a rebalancing, devolution, and restoration of assigned constitutional powers; a restoring of states rights, so to speak. Canada must be returned to something resembling its original constitutional framework by withdrawing federal powers from all places where they have never by right or by law belonged.This is where the "nation" issue comes into play.

Gairdner argues Prime Minister Harper is taking the first step in restoring true federalism in Canada:

Harper is keenly aware that no one will now dare to deny Quebec its new “nation” status. He is also aware that Quebec will now likely support him for a majority government in the next election. And he knows that Quebec will continue to push for the powers appropriate for a nation. But he will hold them to what he said: Quebec will be considered a nation “within a united Canada.” And he will then slowly apply that condition to all other provinces that want it, because under our Constitution provinces were intended to have provincial sovereignty over their own list, and the feds were to meant to keep their hands off. To respect provincial sovereignty in a united Canada. Of course, the other provinces not so dominated by a single ethnic and linguistic group will not care if they are called a “nation,” but it will have to be by some label just as chummy. What they will insist upon is “equal” provincial rights and sovereignty. Thus, through a long process of reversing the workings of the monster – to include reducing taxes wherever possible, eliminating the national debt, removing nanny-state federal tentacles from all places in which they have never by right belonged, and of course by removing transfer payments – he will undertake to restore provincial constitutional rights. Harper has just commenced the deconstruction of our rusty welfare state.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

My friend Tasha Kheiriddin is taking conservatism to a place where it traditionally has been in short supply: the halls of academia.

Tasha is teaching what looks like a fantastic course at McGill University called "The Conservative Movement in Canada" which is probably the first of its kind in the country.

This course will examine the history and current state of the conservative movement in Canada, in three arenas: political, social and economic. It will explore the development of the Conservative party from Confederation until today, with a special focus on the current federal government. It will look at how conservatism in Canada has been shaped by that of the United States and Britain. It will examine where conservatives stand on the issue of national unity and will study the challenges conservatives face in influencing public debate.

Monday, November 27, 2006

The American left-wing group Moveon.org, flush from the recent Democratic electoral victory, is emailing out a survey to find out what it should do next.

The email says:

"We've always believed in the wisdom of crowds—the idea that all of us together are smarter and wiser than any one of us. The survey will only take a few minutes of your time but your answers—along with the answers of all the other MoveOn members—will show the way forward."Hmmm, all of us together are smarter and wiser than any one of us. Interesting notion.

The recent Parliamentary commotion about Quebec’s “nationhood” proves the nationalists in Quebec are winning.

And that’s something all those people praising Prime Minister Stephen Harper for his “masterstroke” resolution seem to be forgetting.

Yes, Harper scored a skillful tactical victory with his “the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada” resolution and yes he did throw the Bloc Quebecois for a loop.

But what about the bigger picture?

Let’s face it, Harper had to introduce his resolution because he was afraid his own caucus members, including cabinet ministers, might support a similar Bloc resolution.

The Prime Minister also feared if his party voted against a resolution calling Quebec a nation they would lose votes in that province.

Also telling is the Prime Minister didn’t dare introduce a resolution saying something like, “Canada is the only nation for Canadians”, a resolution no Quebec politician from any party would have voted for.

What does that say about Quebec’s relationship with the rest of Canada?

To me it says the “Quebecois nation” has little or no emotional attachment to the nation-state we call Canada.

Is that a bad thing?

Not necessarily. In fact, in this day and age of multiculturalism and immigration, coupled with the emergence of new communication technology and globalization the nation-state as we know it is becoming less and less relevant.

Let’s not forget many western Canadians are also growing alienated with what’s going on in Ottawa these days.

I suppose we could call “Albertans a nation within a united Canada” or we could try something else.

For instance, why don’t we redefine federalism?

Instead of actively seeking to pander and appease Quebec nationalists with Parliamentary resolutions, let’s instead reduce the size and scope of the federal government.

That means handing over power to the provinces or to the regions or better yet it means privatizing federal operations that could be better run by the private sector – the CBC and the Post Office spring to mind.

Other institutions like the CRTC could simply be scrapped.

Some people might call this radical.

But I would call it creating a nation that could appeal to all Canadians: a free enterprise nation.

Western society, goes the lecture we have all heard time and time again, is in the grips of an "obesity epidemic."

Our kids are too fat; we are too fat; our dogs and cats are too fat and only the all-knowing, all-wise state can save us from ourselves.

Only the state, we are told, can whip us all into shape -- perhaps with mandatory exercise regimes; perhaps with state mandated diets; perhaps by banning McDonald's.

Yet are we citizens really eating ourselves into a extra-large coffin? Do we really need to be saved from ourselves?

No says Patrick Basham of the Washington-based Democracy Institute. In fact, Basham contends the obesity epidemic is a "myth manufactured by public health officials in concert with assorted academics and special-interest lobbyists."

Actually he contends there are four myths out there concerning obesity: that we and our children are fat; that being fat is a certain recipe for early death; that our fatness stems from the manufacturing and marketing practices of the food industry.

Well I must say Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's economic statement yesterday was a bit of a let down.

Yes, he did outline a prudent fiscal agenda for the next few years, and yes he promised to eliminate the net debt (whatever that means) in 15 years, and yes he promised the interest savings on the lower debt would translate into income tax cuts.

But where was the boldness that this government likes to display when it comes to things like pandering to Quebec nationalists?

I was hoping for some grand announcement on tax cuts or on reductions to government spending.

But there was nothing.

As Terence Corcoran writes in today's Financial Post, "By creating this great smoke machine, Mr. Flaherty appears to be hiding the fact that Canada's New Government has the same old problem -- high taxes and spending levels that will remain high."

"Our position is clear. Do the Québécois form a nation within Canada? The answer is yes. Do the Québécois form an independent nation? The answer is no and the answer will always be no."Now Andrew Coyne makes some interesting observations as to what all this means for Canada and I certainly won't try to top him.

But I do have a few questions of my own.

For instance, does this mean Canada is now officially nine provinces and one nation? Does this mean Quebec can now have a seat in the United Nations? Will Quebec soon have its own national anthem?

And most importantly of all, how in the heck can the House of Commons pass a resolution stating Quebec will never be an "independent nation"?

Never is a long time.

Do our MPs have access to a time machine or something?

And if they do have such a machine, I wish they would let me know when our federal political leaders will stop pandering to Quebec nationalists.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Ok I know the U.S. mid-term election is ancient history and that there are a lot more important things going on in the world, such as the debate over O.J. Simpson's "confession" and Michael "Kramer" Richard's racist meltdown.

But I love polling information and when John McLaughlin, head of the polling firm McLaughlin & Associates,provided me with more detailed analysis of a poll I mentioned a few weeks ago I decided to reproduce it here.

Here it is:

The media exit polls had women voting Democrat for Congress 55-43. Men Democrat 50-47. They did national exit polling in their usual fashion with a national sample of 13,251 with extensive state by state weighting. (Some exits were significantly off. I know I saw them while working for CBS radio that day and night.)

However, our election night postelection survey by phone of 1,000 actual voters had a different result Among men Democrats won 56-43. (s=486).While among women it was closer Democrat 52-47. (s=514).

The difference was negligible by party and gender except among Independents. Among Rep men it was Republican 86-13; Rep women 89-10. Among Dem men it was Democrat 94-5; among Dem women 93-6.So party was more important than gender by far.

However, among the Independent men we had (s=89 small) Democrats won big 61-37; among Independent women (s=66 smaller) Democrats won closer 52-46.

Bottom line was not so much gender, but that Republicanss lost BIG among Independents - regardless of gender.This was the real story.

Both our poll and the media poll had the Democrat vote for Congress winning 54-45 which can be tracked through actual vote tallies.

The media polls do not break the vote out by party and gender. However, they ask their party id a little different and they got Democrats 38%, Republicans 36% and Independents 26%. (Our poll asks party "affiliation" and was 42% Democrats, 39% Republicans and 19% Independents/Don't know/refused.). So theirs seems less partisan and more independent. Our poll probably got sorted more voters into a party.)

However, we had Independents voting Democrat for Congress 57-41. They had Independents voting Democrat for Congress 57-39. They must have had a very different gender break within Independents.

Also the media polls probably have a gender bias where the majority of Democrats are women and the majority of Republicans are men. I can't tell because they didn'[t release that. In our poll both parties were slightly more female than male. Independents were more more male. I think this reflects 2 facts that I'm hearing about now in certain race analyses: first, some men who may have been thinking of themselves and voting as Republicans, now think of themselves as Independents and voted Democratic; second, some Republicans, probably men did not vote. This will require further analysis and study.

The real story is the collapse of Republican voting among Independents and the fact that Democrats outnumbered Republicans in the voting sample for the first time since 2000.

Monday, November 20, 2006

Lots of people are suggesting the War on Terror violates "International Law".

Now I am not a lawyer so I can't comment on the legalities involved, but terrorism expert John Thompson of the Mackenzie Institute recently weighed in on this issue.

In his group's latest newsletter, he says much of international law derives from the efforts of nations to deal with the problems of pirates --- who were much like the terrorists of today.

Indeed the Romans dubbed pirates, Hostis Humani Generis – enemies of all mankind, which also fits terrorists of today.

And 18th Century legalist, Sir William Blackstone, wrote it was the duty of all governments to suppress piracy.

Anyway, here's John's final analysis of how legally we should treat terrorists:

Find them, eliminate them; find their bankrollers, bankrupt them; find their sponsors and punish them. Governments which are not part of the solution, are therefore part of the problem and deserve what they get.Sounds good to me.

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Found out I've been alive 17,660 days or to put it another way 423,840 hours 0r 25,430,400 minutes or 1,525,824,000 seconds (as of Sunday night at 10:30 PM) I am of course a few seconds and minutes and hours older by the time you read this.

American cynic Ambrose Bierce once described a Christian as "one who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin."

I think that description also fits for most people who say they are concerned about the environment --- they believe in environmentalism so long as it's not inconsistent with their lifestyles of fun.

That's why all the pro-Kyoto Accord scientists and politicians and media-types like to downplay the cold hard reality of fighting "climate change": the only way to truly reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to drastically reduce our standard of living.

And nobody really wants that to happen.

Just like developing countries such as China and India won't want to put their plans to improve their standard of living on hold for about 40 years too.

As a story put out by the Reason Foundation puts it, you can't fight poverty and carbon reduction at the same time.

(November 10, 2006)The National Citizens Coalition says the Conservative government should change its proposed Income Trust legislation to allow for a longer phase in period.

“While we support the government’s attempts to fix potential long term problems in the Canadian economy, the proposed income trust changes will have a negative impact on the investment portfolios of seniors and other hard-working Canadians,” says NCC president Peter Coleman.

“That impact could be minimized by increasing the phase in period from four years to ten years, meaning no new taxation on existing income trusts until 2016.”

Coleman says such an increased phase in would not undermine what the government is trying to accomplish with its proposed income trust legislation in terms of preventing tax avoidance, but it would give income trust holders time to make appropriate financial adjustments.

Here's a site where you can find the box score plus the play by play for every major league game from 1957 until 2006!

OK so maybe you have to be a baseball nut to find it really cool.

But check this out, here's the box score of the very first game I ever saw in old Tigers Stadium on July 3, 1972. (Tigers got killed 15-3). Oh and here is the game where Nolan Ryan no-hit the Tigers in 1973.

Well, another part of the poll has even more interesting findings. Here's a press release the pollster just released which explains what I mean:

"It appears that the Republicans have lost their advantage on the philosophical issue of the size of government.

Among the people who voted in this past election, 59% favor a smaller government with fewer services, and only 28% favor a larger government with many services.

Among those who voted for a Republican for Congress, they favor smaller government by a 5-to-1 margin. However, the plurality of voters who voted Democratic also supports smaller government. In the past, these voters wouldn’t consider the Democratic Party an option.

Since the majority of voters voted Democrat and almost half of these Democratic voters prefer smaller government, it's crystal clear that the Republican party has lost their foundational message. They may have lost the middle, but it's a modest middle that wants smaller government.

The battleground for the 110th Congress will be among the independent and dissatisfied voters that had such an impact on the 2006 elections.

Majorities of independent voters (68%) and those who think the country is on the wrong track (52%) favor smaller government.

It will be up to the new Democratic leadership to show if they can back the centrist talk with centrist action. On the other hand, the Republican leadership must rediscover its core principles and remind voters which party will give them smaller government."

"In general, would you say you most favor a smaller government with fewer services, or a larger government with many services?"

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

"The American people voted not to create change in Washington", says the pollster, "but to vent their frustration with a Republican leadership that has let them down. Key segments of the Republican coalition that has dominated for the past 6 years have left the party in 2006. Among our results":

I am appearing tonight as part of a panel on the TV show @issue which airs on the Ichannel at 8:00 PM.

Be sure to tune in as the topic discussed is: "Why the State Inflates".

And yes I know the show is on opposite America's Next Top Model, but surely watching me discuss the evils of big government is more enticing then watching a bunch of beautiful models in skimpy outfits.

Well the dust has settled in the U.S. election and the Democrats are victorious.

No doubt this is a time of great joy for the Michael Moores and the Dixie Chicks of the world.

And I hope they do enjoy themselves over the next few days because I reckon their happiness will soon be replaced by frustration at least when it comes to how to fight the "War on Terror".

Frustration because there is no way in the world the Democratic controlled legislatures will do much to reverse President George Bush's policies, policies which the left hate.

The Democrats won't vote to open the gates of Guantánamo Bay detainment camp, they won't undo Bush's laws on secret surveillance ; they won't call for a softer stance with Iran or North Korea.

After all, the Democrats are not suicidal.

They realize that even though Americans might be getting fed up with the war in Iraq, they stil place a high premium on national security.

Simply put if the Democrats look as though they are pandering to America's enemies or putting Americans at risk through lax security, well then the Republicans will be back into power faster than you can say Newt Gingrich.

David Frum makes this point in an excellent article in today's National Post (which I can't find on their site) and goes further to suggest the crafty Republicans will put the Democrats on the spot time and time again on this issue.

Writes Frum: "Much of the energy and cunning of the Republican party over the next two years will be devoted to thrusting on the Democrats decisions and votes intended to split the more hawkish class of 2006 away from the more traditional liberals in the safe blue-states."

In other words, politics in the U.S. is about to get a lot more interesting.

For more analysis of last night's election check here and here and here.

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Left-wingers on both sides of the border are licking their chops in glee as they anticipate a Republican slaughter in tonight's American mid-term elections.

Here in Canada, the left also sees the impending Republican wipe out as a possibe harbinger of what will happen in the next Canadian federal election.

Michael Byers, for instance, has a piece in today's Toronto Star suggesting tonight's election will sound a death knell for Prime Minister Stephen Harper's own "neo-con" agenda.

Writes Byers:

Here in Canada, Harper, nostalgic for the past successes of Ronald Reagan and Bush, is still looking backwards. Today, as he glances south, will he see the early signs of his own political rip tide?

Or will ideology prevail over good sense, prompting our neo-conservative Prime Minister to maintain his grip on a failed president, whose only escape from a hostile Congress lies in his constitutionally unfettered capacity to use armed force abroad?Sounds pretty serious, doesn't it?

Using Byer's logic, Harper's only hope would be to sign an anti-U.S. miltary pact with North Korea, endorse a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, call for the destruction of Israel and implement a environmental policy that would ban the internal combustion engine.

Did the Republicans work to cut back spending? Did they make cutting taxes a major priority? Did they reduce the size and scope of government?

Nope.

By governing like Democrats when it comes to fiscal domestic policies the Republicans have essentially made the unpopular war in Iraq the key issue in 2006.

That's the lesson for Harper. To win the next election, he has to push a truly conservative vision for Canada, one that will distinguish his party from the increasingly left-wing Liberal party and the socialist NDP/Bloc Quebecois.

Monday, November 06, 2006

Lorne Gunter makes an excellent point about the Income Trust Issue. (Sorry it’s behind a subscription wall).

Essentially, Gunter makes the point that raising the tax on trusts was not the government’s only option.

“Equity could have been achieved,” writes Gunter, “by lowering the taxes on corporations rather than raising the taxes on trusts . . . rather than slashing billions from the value of trusts, it would have added billions to the value of corporations.”

Makes sense to me.

In fact, it made sense to Stephen Harper before he became Prime Minister.

Here’s what he wrote in a National Post op-ed on October 5, 2005, when the Liberals were thinking about taxing income trusts:

“The government claims that income trusts enjoy an unfair tax advantage over corporate dividends. If they believe this, then the answer is not to shut down a valuable investment vehicle, but to cut the double taxation of dividends. In short, level the playing field and let the market decide between income trusts and dividend-paying companies.”

Anyway, the Conservatives will now have to bear the consequences of their actions.

Friday, November 03, 2006

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has flown his chef to Egypt to "share recipes" and discuss culinary protocol with the chief cooks of 16 other national leaders at a meeting of what has been called "the most exclusive gastronomic club in the world. "The precedent has been for the last 10 years that the prime ministers have sent their chefs," said a spokesperson with the Prime Minister's Office. It is a form of "professional development," the spokesperson added.I think the Prime Minister's PR department is in need of some professional development too.

About Me

Gerry Nicholls is a communications consultant and writer who has been called a “political warrior” a “brilliant strategist” and one of the “canniest political observers in Canada.”
He has worked as a consultant in both the United States and Canada and was formerly a senior officer in the National Citizens Coalition.
A regular columnist with the Ottawa Hill Times, his work has also appeared in the Globe and Mail, the National Post and in the Sun Media chain; and he has appeared on countless TV and radio public affairs programs. He is the author of the book, Loyal to the Core, Harper, Me and the NCC.

Twitter Updates

Twitter Updates

Reviews for Loyal to the Core

“Loyal to the Core is a daring and provocative work. It deserves to be read by conservative activists and politicos.” – Western Standard

“This is a very important book.” -- Michael Coren, TV host

“A fascinating read” --- Seamus O'Regan, Canada AM

“I really enjoyed Loyal to the Core. It’s a great book”, - Charles Adler, radio host.

"Loyal to the Core should be required reading for anyone considering or starting a career at a conservative think tank or in electoral politics in general …Consider Loyal to the Core a cautionary tale that’s also a funny, easy read – with a few highly “stealable” ideas for media campaigns thrown in for good measure.”- Kathy Shaidle, author Tyranny of Nice

“Every Canadian remotely interested in politics and the state of the country should have a read of Loyal to the Core. – blogger Wendy Sullivan

"It’s rare to find a politico, however, who is equally passionate about policy and strategy, but columnist, pundit, author and Western Standard blogger Gerry Nicholls is such a person." Matthew Johnson, owner Western Standard

"If you are a conservative who wonders how conservatives can communicate their message in a hostile media climate, Loyal to the Core is a must read." -- At Home in Hespeler